TB1-09002

TB1-09002

The claimants failed to rebut the strong presumption of adequate state protection in Hungary with clear and convincing evidence: their allegations lacked corroborative medical or police documentation, they did not demonstrate attempts to obtain state remedies, and country evidence showed legislative and institutional protections and remedial mechanisms for Roma; accordingly they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB1-09002
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXX; Claimant (minor) and Designated Representative Represented by Parent: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Decision (determination)
Outcome
Claims rejected: claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
State Protection, Persecution, Ethnic Discrimination (roma), Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Determination, Protection From Torture/cruel and Unusual Treatment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Law State Protection Persecution Ethnic Discrimination (roma) Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Determination +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant (minor) and Designated Representative Represented by Parent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Decision (determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants qualify as Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Hungary is adequate or available to the claimants

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to rebut the strong presumption of adequate state protection in Hungary with clear and convincing evidence: their allegations lacked corroborative medical or police documentation, they did not demonstrate attempts to obtain state remedies, and country evidence showed legislative and institutional protections and remedial mechanisms for Roma; accordingly they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected: claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection